Select Committee on European Scrutiny Thirty-Sixth Report


11 European Police College

(26037)

13506/04

COM(04) 623

Draft Decision establishing the European Police College as a body of the European Union

Legal baseArticles 30(1)(c) and 34(2)(c) EU; consultation; unanimity
Document originated1 October 2004
Deposited in Parliament21 October 2004
DepartmentHome Office
Basis of considerationEM of 3 November 2004
Previous Committee ReportNone
To be discussed in CouncilNo date set
Committee's assessmentLegally and politically important
Committee's decisionNot cleared; further information requested

Background

11.1 In 2000, the Council adopted a Decision establishing the European Police College as a network of national police training institutes to supplement and support Member States' training for their senior police officers in the prevention and detection of serious crimes such as terrorism and trafficking in people, drugs and arms.[36] The Decision gave the College neither a legal personality nor a permanent location. The College is financed by contributions from Member States. The College's budget for 2004 is €3.1 million. The United Kingdom makes the second largest contribution to the budget, amounting to nearly 18% of the total.

11.2 Earlier this year, the Council adopted Decisions to give the College a legal personality and to name Bramshill in Hampshire as the permanent location of the College.[37]

11.3 Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (the EU Treaty) makes provision for police and judicial cooperation between Member States in criminal matters. Article 30(1)(c) of the EU Treaty provides for cooperation and joint initiatives in police training. Article 34(2)(c) empowers the Council to adopt Decisions for any purpose consistent with the objectives of Title VI of the Treaty, but excluding any approximation of the laws and regulations of Member States.

11.4 Article 291 of the Treaty on the establishment of the European Community (the EC Treaty) provides that:

    "The Community shall enjoy in the territories of the Member States such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the performance of its tasks, under the conditions laid down in the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities. The same shall apply to the European Central Bank, the European Monetary Institute and the European Investment Bank."

The Protocol referred to in Article 291 contains no reference to "bodies of the European Union". Although Article 41 EU applies a number of Articles of the EC Treaty to activities under Title VI of the EU Treaty, it does not so apply Article 291 EC.

The document

11.5 The document comprises a draft Decision and an Explanatory Memorandum on it by the Commission. In the latter, the Commission says that the effectiveness of the College has been hampered by the absence of a legal personality, a permanent base, direct funding from the Community's budget and the necessary management arrangements and staff rules. The aim of the draft Decision is to help overcome these difficulties. The main provisions of the draft Decision are as follows.

11.6 Articles 1 and 2 propose that the College be established "as a body of the European Union" with its own legal personality.

11.7 Article 3 proposes that the privileges and immunities of the European Communities should apply to the College, its director and its staff.

11.8 Article 5 proposes a definition of the purpose of the College. Among other things, it proposes that :

    "Without prejudice to the competencies of the institutions responsible for training of law-enforcement officers in the Member States, the purpose of [the College] is to help train the senior and other law-enforcement officers of the Member States playing a key role in the fight against cross-border crime in the European Union, with a view to strengthening and improving cooperation in those areas most relevant to the achievement of an area of freedom, security and justice in the sense of Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union. In so doing, [the College] shall strive to support a European approach to the main problems facing Member States in preventing and combating crime, organized or otherwise, especially as regards its cross-border dimensions, by helping to train senior and other law-enforcement officials of the Member States…"

11.9 Article 6 proposes that the College's objectives should be:

  • to increase the number of officers with a working understanding of the practical aspects of law enforcement cooperation (including, for example, an understanding of law enforcement systems in other Member States; the law and institutions of the European Union; the roles and work of Europol and Eurojust; relevant law on human rights; and the languages of the Member States);
  • to contribute to the development of technical and scientific knowledge about crime and the maintenance of law and order; and
  • to strengthen and improve cooperation in training for law enforcement officers.

11.10 Article 7 proposes that the College's tasks should be:

  • to develop common standards for training courses for law enforcement officers and provide national training institutions with those standards and with course modules (including modules for long-distance learning via the European Police Knowledge Net);
  • provide training for Member States' trainers;
  • assess whether (and, if appropriate, certify that) national training institutions are providing the College's modules and methods to common standards;
  • identify priorities for research in law enforcement and commission research;
  • disseminate best practice and research findings; and
  • promote training-related exchanges and secondments of law enforcement officers.

11.11 Article 9 proposes that the Governing Board of the College should be comprised of one representative of each Member State and of the Commission. The Board's responsibilities would include determining the College's budget and work plan and nominating candidates for appointment as Director of the College.

11.12 Article 10 proposes that the Director should be appointed by the Council for a term of five years, renewable for a further five. The Director would be responsible for the day-to-day management of the College and would be accountable to the Governing Board.

11.13 Article 12 proposes that each Member State should set up a College "national unit". The national units would be responsible for putting into effect the modules, methods and standards developed by the College and for evaluating their use in national training institutions.

11.14 Article 14 proposes that the income of the College should come from:

  • an annual subsidy from the budget of the European Union (the Governing Board would approve an estimate for consideration by the Commission and for approval by the European Parliament and the Council; the Commission estimates that the subsidy would be about €4.5 million a year);
  • fees for services; and
  • any voluntary contributions from Member States.

11.15 Under Article 22, the Governing Board would be required, at five-year intervals, to commission an independent external evaluation of the implementation of the Decision and of the efficiency and effectiveness of the College. The evaluation reports would be sent to the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament and be made public.

The Government's view

11.16 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office (Caroline Flint) tells us that the Commission's proposal to transform the College into a body of the European Union would enable it to improve its effectiveness. In the Government's view, the proposal would not change the College's fundamental role.

11.17 The Minister says:

    "As an EU Body, CEPOL [the College] would receive funding from the Community budget. The benefit of the change from funding the CEPOL budget from Member State contributions on the basis of Gross National Product to Community funding is that CEPOL could be funded for all of its activity from a central source rather than having to apply for top up funding from various EU programmes…The Government believes that this would add flexibility, improve business planning, and assist with a more responsive and more timely programme delivery."

11.18 The Minister also says that the proposal would improve the arrangements for the governance of the College and for decision-making. It would make the College's objectives more explicit and extend the College's scope to include training for law enforcement officers generally, rather than confine it to senior police officers. Moreover, the proposal would require the College to evaluate the effectiveness of its work. The Government believes that these changes would enable the College to become more effective.

Conclusion

11.19 We recognise that cooperation between Member States in the training of law enforcement officers can make a valuable contribution to improving the prevention and detection of serious cross-border crime. The European Police College has the potential to play a major role in this. But, so far, it has been hampered by factors outside its control, such as the present funding mechanism and the delay in providing it with a permanent base. We are glad, therefore, that it now has a permanent base at Bramshill and we share the Government's view that changes along the lines proposed in the draft Decision would be likely to enable the College to be more effective and provide better value for money.

11.20 We have the following questions, however, about the provisions of the draft Decision:

  • Article 1 proposes the establishment of the College as "a body of the European Union". The EC Treaty contains provision for the establishment of bodies of the Community. But we are not aware of a legal base for the establishment of bodies of the Union. We would be grateful if the Minister could explain the significance of making the College "a body of the European Union" when the EU Treaty does not provide for the EU itself to enjoy legal personality.
  • Article 291 of the EC Treaty does not apply to Title VI of the EU Treaty , and neither that Article nor the Protocol referred to in Article 291 EC refers to privileges or immunities of the European Union or bodies of the Union. We would be grateful if the Minister would explain the legal basis for conferring the privileges and immunities of the European Communities on European Union bodies.
  • The approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States is excluded from the scope of the decisions that may be adopted under Article 34(2)(c) of the EC Treaty. We ask the Minister to explain why the proposal in Article 3 of the draft Decision to confer immunities and privileges on the College, thereby affecting in a like manner the operation of the laws of all Member States in relation to the College, does not amount to an approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. We also ask the Minister to explain why it is thought necessary to extend each of the privileges and immunities of the European Communities to the College, its director and its staff when no analogous provision has been made in relation to Eurojust.
  • Article 12 of the draft Decision proposes that every Member State should be required to appoint a "national unit". It does not appear to us that the Commission has provided a sufficient justification for this proposal. Moreover, it is not clear that the requirement imposed on Member States by Article 12 would satisfy the tests for compliance with the principle of subsidiarity.
  • Article 22 of the draft Decision proposes that there should be an independent external assessment of the College once every five years. It seems to us, however, that an early improvement in the effectiveness of the College is called for and that it might be prudent, therefore, if the first evaluation were done after three rather than five years.

11.21 Negotiations on the document have only just begun. Both for that reason and because of our questions about the provisions of the draft Decision, we shall keep the document under scrutiny. We should be grateful for the Minister's answer to the points we have raised about Articles 1, 3, 12 and 22 and if she would keep us informed of the progress of the negotiations.


36   Council Decision 2000/820/JHA, OJ No. L 336, 30.12.00, p.1. Back

37   OJ No. L 251, 27.7.04, p.19 and OJ No. L 251, 27. 7. 04, p. 20. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 22 November 2004